There clearly wasn't a "top of the rotation" starter available. Why is that hard not to understand?

I understand exactly what was available. I just said we didn't fill a need. I didn't say we had several chances to get an ace this winter.

Maybe they feel Buchholz or Lester will be the staff ace. They both have the talent, they are both healthy and they are reunited with a coach they had success with. Why not?

I never said they can't become ace-like. I never said we had zero chance, but we lost our best or second best pitcher (Beckett) and picked up Dempster (and Lackey). I do not see our rotation looking any better than it did last January. It's a hope and a prayer more than anything logical. Why is that "so hard to understand"? (to borrow your condescension)

There are also some pretty knowledgeable baseball people out there who think that a healthy John Lackey could have a better season than any free agent pitcher who was available not named "Greinke." It's certainly possible. They also acquired a guy who should give them a lot of quality innings in Dempster, so they don't have to rely on the Stewarts and Cooks of the world again.

I have said many times we have much btter 5-6-7 starters than in recent years. We could have done better than Dempster, or we could have gotten someone like a good 2/3 slot starter under team control for 3+ years while in his prime years. We could have done this without trading a single farmhand.

David Ortiz should be a pretty good clean up hitter. This line-up has the potential to lead the league in runs and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an available clean-up hitter that they "missed out on." I'd certainly take this line-up over most of the ones that were playing in October last year.

I'd rather have Papi up 3rd, but if you want him 4th, that's fine. Then, I will reword it for you: we need a number 3 hitter now. We spent over $50M and made a trade for a closer, but left the 2 biggest needs unfilled. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

I'd have been fine with not spending big on filling one of those two needs, had we instead made moves geared towards our future. In fact, that was my preference. I don't call making no trades "helping" our future. It's standing pat and "playing it half way": don't build for the future and don't make us strong contenders either. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

You also keep saying that "they made no moves that will help them in 2014 and 2015." This makes no sense at all to me.

Name one move that hepls us in 2014 and 2015. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

First of all, they kept their farm system together. I'm pretty sure that will help them in 2014 and 2015, whether it's because some of these players develop or they use them as trade pieces to get someone who may become available (Stanton?) that wasn't available this off season.

Not making a move to help may be helpful, but it is not making a move to help.

A move to help in the future would be something like extending or trading Lester for Myers, signing just 1 free agent that will be in his prime for 2014 and 2015, or trading Ellsbury, Salty and any other player not in our future plans for prospects that will either help us in the future or be traded for players under team control for 2-3+ years-- not 1 and out.

Why is that "so hard to understand"?

By the way, are Victorino, Dempster, Breslow, Ross and Gomes all retiring after this season?!?!

Are they getting better or will they still be in their prime? (I do like the Breslow extension, so I guess there was one move geared towards 2014 & 2015).

They signed multi-year deals. I'm pretty sure some of these guys will help them beyond this season. Do Ulehara, Hanrahan, Drew and Napoli all already have no intention of resigning with Boston after the season?!

Who knows and who really cares. We could have signed them in 2014 anyways, if they proved worthy enough.

The Hanrahan deal was OK, since I did not see any of the prospects being stars someday, but the trade did nothing to help us in 2014 and beyond.

Is it possible that if the Sox are out of it that some of these guys could bring back talent that could help the future? Didn't the Sox maintain a ton of payroll flexibility moving forward? I'm pretty sure that's going to help the 2014 and 2015 clubs out.

I have said this is perhaps the only redeeming quality of this winter's moves, but it still sounds a bit absurd to call this a "plan for the future". Wouldn't it just have been easier to actually sign guys in their prime years to 2-3 years instead of past prime or nearing past prime?

.

We'll see what happens, but keeping all of their resources while putting together a roster that has the talent to be in the hunt doesn't seem like playing it "half way" to me. Just out of curiosity, what would you have considered playing it "all the way," because your plan of a complete rebuild was never a realistic option?

I listed that plan several times and was met with "he wouldn't have signed here", so what's the use. I was never for spending huge on a weak class, but as I have said many times, I'd rather have signed A Sanchez than SV, RD, and SD. Was it unrealistic to want to trade Ellsbury? They did shop him, you know. Trade Salty or Lava? Trade a pen arm that will be a FA after 2014? Not radical, but doing just one of these would be a move "for the future".

Look, I love our prospects. I'm glad we have them. I like our future, but don't see us having much of a chance this year. I just wanted something serious done to improve our outlook on 2014. I'm sorry if I don't drink the Kool-Aid and rave about how all the guys we signed are short term. Yippie! Hurray! Their just as bad as what we had last year, but are shorter term. And, I'm supposed to be happy about that? Sorry, if I am not.

There clearly wasn't a "top of the rotation" starter available. Why is that hard not to understand?

I understand exactly what was available. I just said we didn't fill a need. I didn't say we had several chances to get an ace this winter.

Maybe they feel Buchholz or Lester will be the staff ace. They both have the talent, they are both healthy and they are reunited with a coach they had success with. Why not?

I never said they can't become ace-like. I never said we had zero chance, but we lost our best or second best pitcher (Beckett) and picked up Dempster (and Lackey). I do not see our rotation looking any better than it did last January. It's a hope and a prayer more than anything logical. Why is that "so hard to understand"? (to borrow your condescension)Beckett was considered addition by subtraction by the entire organization. He wasn't coming back. "Last January?!?" Really? I like to compare "seasons" and I'll bet you any amount of money you care to wager that the starting rotation is significantly better this year than it was last year. Our "condescension" is always mutual.

There are also some pretty knowledgeable baseball people out there who think that a healthy John Lackey could have a better season than any free agent pitcher who was available not named "Greinke." It's certainly possible. They also acquired a guy who should give them a lot of quality innings in Dempster, so they don't have to rely on the Stewarts and Cooks of the world again.

I have said many times we have much btter 5-6-7 starters than in recent years. We could have done better than Dempster, or we could have gotten someone like a good 2/3 slot starter under team control for 3+ years while in his prime years. We could have done this without trading a single farmhand.

David Ortiz should be a pretty good clean up hitter. This line-up has the potential to lead the league in runs and I'm pretty sure there wasn't an available clean-up hitter that they "missed out on." I'd certainly take this line-up over most of the ones that were playing in October last year.

I'd rather have Papi up 3rd, but if you want him 4th, that's fine. Then, I will reword it for you: we need a number 3 hitter now. We spent over $50M and made a trade for a closer, but left the 2 biggest needs unfilled. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

Again, who? By the way, did you ever think that these were YOUR two biggest needs and not considered the two biggest needs of the 50 or so people who actually have a say in the transactions they make?

I'd have been fine with not spending big on filling one of those two needs, had we instead made moves geared towards our future. In fact, that was my preference. I don't call making no trades "helping" our future. It's standing pat and "playing it half way": don't build for the future and don't make us strong contenders either. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

What were these moves they could have made that would have been great for now and "geared towards the future?" Did you actually read what I wrote about how they are well set up for the future?

You also keep saying that "they made no moves that will help them in 2014 and 2015." This makes no sense at all to me.

Name one move that hepls us in 2014 and 2015. Why is that "so hard to understand"?

I already adressed this. See below...

First of all, they kept their farm system together. I'm pretty sure that will help them in 2014 and 2015, whether it's because some of these players develop or they use them as trade pieces to get someone who may become available (Stanton?) that wasn't available this off season.

Not making a move to help may be helpful, but it is not making a move to help.

A move to help in the future would be something like extending or trading Lester for Myers, signing just 1 free agent that will be in his prime for 2014 and 2015, or trading Ellsbury, Salty and any other player not in our future plans for prospects that will either help us in the future or be traded for players under team control for 2-3+ years-- not 1 and out.

Why is that "so hard to understand"?

They flatly rejected the Royals trade and many agree it was the right decision. Did you ever think that maybe Lester or his agent didn't want to sign an extension when he is coming off his worst season?! Do you think that's possible? If I was his agent, there is no way I let him sign an extension right now. How do you know Salty is not in their future plans?!?!?! You keep posting this like it's illegal for a team to sign their own free agents. Did you ever think that maybe Salty and his agent have some confidence that Salty will continue to develop and cash in after this season?

And once again, they...weren't...rebuilding. They weren't trading their starting centerfielder and starting catcher for "prospects." That is a fact. Keep posting they "should have" though.

By the way, are Victorino, Dempster, Breslow, Ross and Gomes all retiring after this season?!?!

Are they getting better or will they still be in their prime? (I do like the Breslow extension, so I guess there was one move geared towards 2014 & 2015).

The next team that fields a roster with 25 guys in their "prime" will be the first. I'm pretty sure some of these veterans will still help them out after 2013.

They signed multi-year deals. I'm pretty sure some of these guys will help them beyond this season. Do Ulehara, Hanrahan, Drew and Napoli all already have no intention of resigning with Boston after the season?!

Who knows and who really cares. We could have signed them in 2014 anyways, if they proved worthy enough.

Again, the Sox need to field a team in 2013. It's not at all unrealistic to think that the 2013 team could actually have more success than any team in the next decade.

The Hanrahan deal was OK, since I did not see any of the prospects being stars someday, but the trade did nothing to help us in 2014 and beyond.

The Sox saw an opportuniy to get someone who could close games for them in 2013 at a good price. I know, 2013 doesn't matter, but in the "realistic" world, even the Astros will name a closer to start the season.

Is it possible that if the Sox are out of it that some of these guys could bring back talent that could help the future? Didn't the Sox maintain a ton of payroll flexibility moving forward? I'm pretty sure that's going to help the 2014 and 2015 clubs out.

I have said this is perhaps the only redeeming quality of this winter's moves, but it still sounds a bit absurd to call this a "plan for the future". Wouldn't it just have been easier to actually sign guys in their prime years to 2-3 years instead of past prime or nearing past prime?

Again, who?????

We'll see what happens, but keeping all of their resources while putting together a roster that has the talent to be in the hunt doesn't seem like playing it "half way" to me. Just out of curiosity, what would you have considered playing it "all the way," because your plan of a complete rebuild was never a realistic option?

I listed that plan several times and was met with "he wouldn't have signed here", so what's the use. I was never for spending huge on a weak class, but as I have said many times, I'd rather have signed A Sanchez than SV, RD, and SD. Was it unrealistic to want to trade Ellsbury? They did shop him, you know. Trade Salty or Lava? Trade a pen arm that will be a FA after 2014? Not radical, but doing just one of these would be a move "for the future".

Sanchez wasn't realistic.

Look, I love our prospects. I'm glad we have them. I like our future, but don't see us having much of a chance this year. I just wanted something serious done to improve our outlook on 2014. I'm sorry if I don't drink the Kool-Aid and rave about how all the guys we signed are short term. Yippie! Hurray! Their just as bad as what we had last year, but are shorter term. And, I'm supposed to be happy about that? Sorry, if I am not.

Sorry, if you can't "understand" that.

You're a stat guy and don't get the chemistry concept. It's not 40 years ago and the Dick Williams era is over in Oakland. Guys HAD to play hard back then to earn a living. Totally different era. Talk to any current player or coach who isn't a "problem" and they will tell you clubhouse chemistry is crucial to winning these days. This team will be better for the simple reason that they won't have what one ESPN writer who covers the Sox said was "the worst clubhouse environment he's seen in ANY sport in 20 years." Other than that, I guess we'll continue to agree to disagree.

I have never claimed I am an expert or that I am better than Ben. I know that some moves I have suggested might have been next to impossible to make happen, but clearly we could have made one move other than the Breslow extension to help out team in 2014, 2015 and/or beyond. I have named dozens of possible moves and find it hard to believe all were "unrealistic" or impossible. I know Ben said "no" to some moves, and I understand his reasoning. He may end up being right by saying no to Myers. I'm not even sure it would have been a good move, but it certainly would have been a move to address improving our longterm outlook--wether it worked out or not will be an argument for a later date.

I will vehemently disagree with you on your position that anyone who understand stats and uses them to support his positions does not and cannot understand the "chemstry concept". I've played enough baseball over my lifetime to know quite a bit about the good and the bad and the inbetween. Yeah, baseball has changed since my era, but there is certainly plenty of evidence in all of sports to show that winning without kumbaya or "play hard" chemistry is entirely possible.

I remember how poster blasted Manny for "not playing hard", JD Drew for "not caring", Youk for "going ballistic", Pedro for having 6 grandmas die so he could miss ST, and recently a guy like Beckett who had the drive to nearly single-handedly lead two seperate teams to rings being called a cancer and a negative influence on a clubhouse while leading his team to a 20-10 record in 2011 despite getting neearly half the run support of the other top 4 starters.

I'm not saying chemistry and harmony are the same or are unimportant, but most of baseball comes down to pure talent, lessening large weak links, and getting a little bit of luck.

I have watched every pitch of every single Sox game for several years now, and close to that for many many years before that. I rarely formulate any of my positions by looking at stats. I developed my philosophies when I played the game and by watching the game closely. Stats have made me relook at some positions I have held, and at times I have refocused my attention and changed my views, but believe it or not, I am not a stats driven person. I use stats a lot to support my position and to show others another view of what they believe is true, but the numbers might show otherwise. I know a big part of my threads are about numbers. I do enjoy stats and numbers, but my love of the game goes way way beyond numbers. I do know that attitude is a huge part of what makes a player great, good, fair or poor. I've seen players with way more talent than others not have the right attitude and they failed more than they should have. I understand why Ben has tried to change the clubhouse culture this winter (and with the Dodger trade last summer). I hope it works and carries over into the next few years. I hope we get something good by trading some of his signees, but I am not sure he will pull the trigger. Not trading Ellsbury shows me that he might care more about the here and now and the TV ratings than our longterm future. I guess I have a fundamental difference of opinion with Ben on this, but again, I am not saying I am clearly right. Time will tell. I hope I am wrong. I'll be here to apologize if it turns out that Ben's plan works out.

I have never claimed I am an expert or that I am better than Ben. I know that some moves I have suggested might have been next to impossible to make happen, but clearly we could have made one move other than the Breslow extension to help out team in 2014, 2015 and/or beyond. I have named dozens of possible moves and find it hard to believe all were "unrealistic" or impossible. I know Ben said "no" to some moves, and I understand his reasoning. He may end up being right by saying no to Myers. I'm not even sure it would have been a good move, but it certainly would have been a move to address improving our longterm outlook--wether it worked out or not will be an argument for a later date.

I will vehemently disagree with you on your position that anyone who understand stats and uses them to support his positions does not and cannot understand the "chemstry concept". I've played enough baseball over my lifetime to know quite a bit about the good and the bad and the inbetween. Yeah, baseball has changed since my era, but there is certainly plenty of evidence in all of sports to show that winning without kumbaya or "play hard" chemistry is entirely possible.

I remember how poster blasted Manny for "not playing hard", JD Drew for "not caring", Youk for "going ballistic", Pedro for having 6 grandmas die so he could miss ST, and recently a guy like Beckett who had the drive to nearly single-handedly lead two seperate teams to rings being called a cancer and a negative influence on a clubhouse while leading his team to a 20-10 record in 2011 despite getting neearly half the run support of the other top 4 starters.

I'm not saying chemistry and harmony are the same or are unimportant, but most of baseball comes down to pure talent, lessening large weak links, and getting a little bit of luck.

I have watched every pitch of every single Sox game for several years now, and close to that for many many years before that. I rarely formulate any of my positions by looking at stats. I developed my philosophies when I played the game and by watching the game closely. Stats have made me relook at some positions I have held, and at times I have refocused my attention and changed my views, but believe it or not, I am not a stats driven person. I use stats a lot to support my position and to show others another view of what they believe is true, but the numbers might show otherwise. I know a big part of my threads are about numbers. I do enjoy stats and numbers, but my love of the game goes way way beyond numbers. I do know that attitude is a huge part of what makes a player great, good, fair or poor. I've seen players with way more talent than others not have the right attitude and they failed more than they should have. I understand why Ben has tried to change the clubhouse culture this winter (and with the Dodger trade last summer). I hope it works and carries over into the next few years. I hope we get something good by trading some of his signees, but I am not sure he will pull the trigger. Not trading Ellsbury shows me that he might care more about the here and now and the TV ratings than our longterm future. I guess I have a fundamental difference of opinion with Ben on this, but again, I am not saying I am clearly right. Time will tell. I hope I am wrong. I'll be here to apologize if it turns out that Ben's plan works out.

Great post, Moon...I'm still going to argue with you, though. If one of us was "right" about everything, then I wouldn't bother...:)

I have never claimed I am an expert or that I am better than Ben. I know that some moves I have suggested might have been next to impossible to make happen, but clearly we could have made one move other than the Breslow extension to help out team in 2014, 2015 and/or beyond. I have named dozens of possible moves and find it hard to believe all were "unrealistic" or impossible. I know Ben said "no" to some moves, and I understand his reasoning. He may end up being right by saying no to Myers. I'm not even sure it would have been a good move, but it certainly would have been a move to address improving our longterm outlook--wether it worked out or not will be an argument for a later date.

I will vehemently disagree with you on your position that anyone who understand stats and uses them to support his positions does not and cannot understand the "chemstry concept". I've played enough baseball over my lifetime to know quite a bit about the good and the bad and the inbetween. Yeah, baseball has changed since my era, but there is certainly plenty of evidence in all of sports to show that winning without kumbaya or "play hard" chemistry is entirely possible.

I remember how poster blasted Manny for "not playing hard", JD Drew for "not caring", Youk for "going ballistic", Pedro for having 6 grandmas die so he could miss ST, and recently a guy like Beckett who had the drive to nearly single-handedly lead two seperate teams to rings being called a cancer and a negative influence on a clubhouse while leading his team to a 20-10 record in 2011 despite getting neearly half the run support of the other top 4 starters.

I'm not saying chemistry and harmony are the same or are unimportant, but most of baseball comes down to pure talent, lessening large weak links, and getting a little bit of luck.

I have watched every pitch of every single Sox game for several years now, and close to that for many many years before that. I rarely formulate any of my positions by looking at stats. I developed my philosophies when I played the game and by watching the game closely. Stats have made me relook at some positions I have held, and at times I have refocused my attention and changed my views, but believe it or not, I am not a stats driven person. I use stats a lot to support my position and to show others another view of what they believe is true, but the numbers might show otherwise. I know a big part of my threads are about numbers. I do enjoy stats and numbers, but my love of the game goes way way beyond numbers. I do know that attitude is a huge part of what makes a player great, good, fair or poor. I've seen players with way more talent than others not have the right attitude and they failed more than they should have. I understand why Ben has tried to change the clubhouse culture this winter (and with the Dodger trade last summer). I hope it works and carries over into the next few years. I hope we get something good by trading some of his signees, but I am not sure he will pull the trigger. Not trading Ellsbury shows me that he might care more about the here and now and the TV ratings than our longterm future. I guess I have a fundamental difference of opinion with Ben on this, but again, I am not saying I am clearly right. Time will tell. I hope I am wrong. I'll be here to apologize if it turns out that Ben's plan works out.

Great post, Moon...I'm still going to argue with you, though. If one of us was "right" about everything, then I wouldn't bother...:)

Jasko, I love debating with you. You have always had my full respect.

One thing going in your favor: I've been wrong about my Sox projections for several straight years.

The Market for Ellsbury train is gone. The rent market for Ellsbury, this summer, will be Section 9 Obama housing or homeless rent cost market. Boras will have to put a new paint job on his lies for one of his "franchise players" who will be thirty in year one, and blood testing and HGH no longer a MLBPA fraud in the inducement option for old athletes.

The Market for Ellsbury train is gone. The rent market for Ellsbury, this summer, will be Section 9 Obama housing or homeless rent cost market. Boras will have to put a new paint job on his lies for one of his "franchise players" who will be thirty in year one, and blood testing and HGH no longer a MLBPA fraud in the inducement option for old athletes.

The Market for Ellsbury train is gone. The rent market for Ellsbury, this summer, will be Section 9 Obama housing or homeless rent cost market. Boras will have to put a new paint job on his lies for one of his "franchise players" who will be thirty in year one, and blood testing and HGH no longer a MLBPA fraud in the inducement option for old athletes.

The Market for Ellsbury train is gone. The rent market for Ellsbury, this summer, will be Section 9 Obama housing or homeless rent cost market. Boras will have to put a new paint job on his lies for one of his "franchise players" who will be thirty in year one, and blood testing and HGH no longer a MLBPA fraud in the inducement option for old athletes.

i understand the reality here. but you can't leave me to my delusions can you?? it's like waking up a sleepwalker. DONT DO IT!

the sox have been pretty consistent that they want to retain his services and the Ells/Boras camp has been consistent that he will hit FA. Wether the sox resign him or not all boils down to his 2013 season, JBJs progression and opposing GM interest in him. and no moon, i don't buy that he doesn't like it here..